A petition calling on House Democrats not to support House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as the next Speaker has hit 500,000 signatures, according to its creator.
It follows the Democrats’ dramatic midterm election victory that saw the party flip both the Senate and the House of Representatives, which will lead to a new Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House.
The petition, which labels Jeffries part of the “Democratic establishment,” suggests Democratic leaders are likely to remain under pressure from their party’s left-wing over both personal and policy choices. It was created by Nicole Whitted, an author and Democratic supporting social media creator with over 210,000 followers on TikTok.
For those who don’t want to give newsweek a click: https://www.change.org/p/house-democrats-choose-a-new-speaker
I’d say that Ro Khanna or Pramila Jayapal in terms of seniority and experience and proven progressive streak should become Speaker.
For US Senate, I see nobody better than Senator Sanders who is actually the visionary who helped set this all in motion, unlike Schumer. It’s a perfect role and way to cement his legacy in a substantive way.
For both these positions, age is less of an issue and more respect, experience, and understanding of chamber rules matter more.
Being the Senate majority leader requires a different skillset than retail campaigning. We need a progressive in that role, though, definitely, someone who will take risks and bend only when absolutely necessary.
You also don’t want to put any potential presidential candidates in there–legislators have a lot of exposure to attack ads by voting for bills they don’t 100% agree with but are worth the tradeoffs and a majority leader is going to have less freedom to vote No.
I feel this is exactly why Sanders is perfect for the role, though.
The mere signal this would send to say that progressives are here to stay for the Democratic party would be massive alone.
That said I’m open to other suggestions, but the options are somewhat limited for experienced progressives who understand Senate rules and decorum and have relationships with much of the Senate.
He’s 85. We wouldn’t let an 85-year-old manage an Arby’s. I love Bernie, but we gotta get off the gerontocracy.
But he’s already a US Senator, repeatedly elected, and part of the most powerful chamber. The US Senate Majority Leader role is all about age and wisdom, frankly and little different than the duties he’s already fulfilling effectively.
I can see this concern for the President, but in this case if the worst happens, Dems can just appoint someone else. It’s Low Risk / High Reward.
The real question is: What can you point to that has shown his age with respect to cognition or position on current-events?
The second question: If not him, then who?
Pretty much everything he’s ever said about the AI bubble. He’s either drunk the fearmonger Kool Aid or some awful staffers. Either way, he’s dropped the ball entirely, up to going on stage with Steve Fucking Bannon to talk about a sci-fi concept that has nothing to do with LLM tech or the real stakes of the bubble. It’s been an awful show of face for him.
I take issue with the way one framed this. It feels disingenuous.
He did not go on stage “with” Steve Bannon; he had a speech on the same stage that Bannon gave a speech on at the same event, detailing mutual if not tangential concerns about AI and its effect son humanity. That seems completely different than seemingly trying to imply they’re buddies or something.
Seems that while Bernie may be overextending the capacity for AI to be fluidly intelligent, I actually think he and his advisors are threading the needle very effectively in saying that, “Hey look, we know AI in some shape or form is likely here to stay. If it is, then it should be regulated, perhaps nationalized, and in the hands of public interests to be used for good – like combating disinformation or pursing advancements in healthcare, etc.”
Overall, across all issues, I think he and his team are pretty much on-point, and splitting hairs on AI is maybe a rare exception, not the norm – and certainly not an indication of declining cognitive capacity or age. But again, since our options are limited to 100 US Senators and non-freshman generally, I’m very curious who one believes the better pick would be.
He’s 85 years old. It’s safe to assume cognitive decline. We let people retire at 67 without an exam, and we should be able to retire our legislators the same way.
We don’t force them to retire at 67, though. There are a lot of morons in the world. I’d put Bernie at 10% decline against most people 40 years younger.
That said, I doubt he wants the job and I doubt the caucus as a whole would support an independent.
I just want to put it here, too:
Elizabeth Warren for Senate Majority Leader!
You’re right. I love Bernie, but he’s not a strategic thinker.
Strategic aka always bending to the Republicans?
No, as in knowing how to outmaneuver them.
The current moment owes almost everything to Bernie’s first major campaign ten years ago, but he’s made some pretty big blunders recently. Going on stage with Steve Bannon to fearmonger about rogue AI, a complete sci-fi concept, WTF?
No real shade. He’s old, no one can turn the wheel forever and eventually someone’s gotta keep the momentum moving, and that’s exactly what I think has happened to Sanders.
Well, I’ve been a fan of his since the 90’s he’s never been that great at picking staff and he’s not very good on subjects that aren’t his focus. And he’s a tad sexist. But his heart is in the right place.
I’m in favor of Elizabeth Warren. She can fight
I would be 100% fine with her, and I’m ashamed I didn’t think of her as a candidate.
She’s a self declared capitalist. We can do better
nah she’s a snake
Bernie is not a Democrat, they’d never let him become Majority leader for their party. I’m not even sure if it would be possible unless Sanders switched from I to D
You’ve got me curious about what the exact rules of selecting the Senate Leader. I know in the House, literally anyone can be voted into Speaker of the House, they don’t even have to be in Congress.
Yes, Speaker of the House is a singular role that overseas the entire House, and everyone votes on it.
It’s per-party in the Senate. Each party selects their leader, and depending on which party gets the majority, they get named “Senate Majority/Minority Leader”
Progressives don’t have enough clout yet to choose the speaker. A lot of the people who just won new seats are conservative to moderate Democrats.
At this point I just want a fighter who’s going to go after maga. I’m pretty progressive but we need to be realistic about how Congress actually works.
No point in preemptively negotiating yourself down though, right? nows exactly the time to set levels
Being a realist will make you no friends here.
If being a realist means compromising your values before negotiations even begin and calling that strategy then yes that is going to be very poorly received.
No basically if you’re not cheering for your favorite manic socialist dream candidate then it’s going to be ill received.
Oh I’m well aware lol.
Bernie is a million years old let the poor man rest and get someone younger for that job man.
Bernie never does anything he doesn’t want to do. I’d let him speak for himself on that, not us.
Speaking for us is the role though.
Sort of, and to that extent Sanders is excellent at that!
But I’m confused. Is this about what Sanders wants to do with his remaining time here with us, or what you want?
It’s elder abuse to want an eighty-five year old to do that job when there are plenty of younger people who are willing and able to.
Isn’t it ageism to tell someone what they can and can’t do?
I’m pro-choice, which means letting him decide for himself.
And who?
I think the world should be ran by people under the age of sixty.
Should we have age restrictions on voting? Should a baby be allowed to vote?
If I were to ask the other user if a baby had the cognitive and physical faculties to fulfill their job of their own volition, they of course would say no. When I asked if Bernie could, they would have to answer yes objectively.
I am okay with age limits if we already have age minimums. But until the law actually changes, then I’m going to use the proven assets we have in this very moment for the advantage of good. And so far, I’ve seen no other substantive reason why Sanders wouldn’t be a good pick for House Majority Leader of the Senate. If it was for President, then yes I would be in agreement that he’s too old. But a loss of a President is much different than the loss of a Senate Majority Leader.
He gets to be the party sage telling people not to look in the mirror while they’re rolling.